Gathering Theme: The Indian Act – Disempowering, Assimilatory and Exclusionary

Gathering Theme

The Indian Act: Disempowering, Assimilatory and Exlusionary

Jeremy Patzer
University of Manitoba

Opening common to all gatherings

Presentation of the theme

The Indian Act has come to be known as the primary mechanism by which the federal government instituted a legal power for itself and its Indian agents over the lives, rights, and identities of First Nations peoples. The terms of the act apply only to those recognized as having Indian status—the legal recognition by the Crown that one is in fact an “Indian”—and the federal government does not, and has never, recognized Indian status for all people of First Nations descent within the boundaries of what is now Canada. The purview of the act also does not extend to Métis or Inuit peoples. This is largely due to a history of the federal government seeking to limit the liabilities flowing from its constitutional responsibility for Indigenous peoples. The very nature of the act as scrutineer and bestower of Indian status thus created the status/non-status divide, and is why we even have a concept of “non-status Indian” in the first place. Thus, the Indian Act is profoundly 1) disempowering, 2) assimilatory and 3) exclusionary.

The Indian Act was neither the sole nor the first legislation to envisage the paternalistic control and assimilation of First Nations. Both prior to and just after Confederation, instances of pre-Indian Act legislation were enacted that envisaged a “civilizational” process of assimilation that was meant to eventually remove all legal distinctions between Indians and the Crown’s Canadian subjects. In the shift from the pre-Confederation to post-Confederation legislation, the efforts at assimilation became more acute. Enfranchisement—the removal of Indian status—went from voluntary to involuntary, although it had been forcible from the beginning for wives and children of husbands who were enfranchised. It precluded First Nations women from the leadership and political life of their communities, and also provided for the automatic enfranchisement of women (and their children) when they married a man not recognized as an Indian. The post-Confederation act also enabled the government to impose its own style of band council in cases where it desired to remove the traditional governance structure of a First Nation. According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), not only was the style of imposed governance structure assimilative, but so was its limited scale. In effect, there “was simply no provision for traditional groupings going beyond the individual band level. In fact, the goal of the measures was specifically to undermine nation-level governance systems and the broader nation-level associations of Indians more generally” (Italics added).

It was not until 1876, nine years after Confederation, that An Act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians was passed, modifying and consolidating much of the former legislation into Canada’s first incarnation of the Indian Act. Cora Voyageur encapsulates the act’s functions as “to define who was and was not an Indian, to civilize the Indian, and to manage the Indian people and their lands.” According to John Leslie, “it touched on all aspects of Indian reserve life.” It preserved the assimilatory and discriminatory provisions of its predecessors, even expanding on some of them.

The original Indian Act retained the federal government’s power to remove traditional Indigenous governance structures and added to the list of reasons for which the federal government could remove chiefs from band leadership. The federal government did exactly this to the Six Nations band within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in Ontario, purely because the band created anxiety within the Canadian government through their travels to London and Geneva, seeking recognition of their sovereignty. Duncan Campbell Scott, the deputy superintendent general of Indian Affairs, secured approval from Cabinet to remove the confederacy council that governed Canada’s largest reserve. According to the account of John Borrows and Leonard Rotman:

Without prior notice to the chiefs, they were removed from office by an order-in-council on the morning of October 7, 1924. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized the wampum used to sanction council proceedings, and posted a proclamation on the doors of the council house announcing the date and procedures for an elected government on the Six Nations reserve. (A wampum is a ceremonial belt used as a gift, as currency, and for recording treaties and historical events).1

The cleavage created within this First Nation by the government’s imposition of a second, competing governance structure has remained for generations.

The Indian Act also retained compulsory enfranchisement and extended it to individuals if they were to earn a university degree or become a doctor, lawyer or member of the clergy. It even aspired for the voluntary enfranchisement of entire bands through a process that planned for the surveying and subdivision of reserves. It was theoretically feasible, then, if history were to progress as the federal government had desired it, for all reserves to be subdivided into individual lots and, through the assimilatory processes of enfranchisement, the entirety of any given reserve to be eroded away into private lots held by owners with no Indian status.

By the end of the nineteenth century, as John Leslie notes, the lack of tangible results in assimilating Indigenous peoples encouraged officials to become even more interventionist:

In the view of government officials, a relatively effortless way of dealing with the apparent lack of progress was to revise the Indian Act to give more powers to local Indian agents and to heavily penalize Indian people for persisting in the old ways. For example, in the 1880s, Indian agents acquired additional powers as justices of the peace in order to prosecute Indians. In April 1884, the Indian Act was amended by section 3, which placed a ban on dances and traditional ceremonies. In 1894, section 11 gave the Minister of Indian Affairs the power to direct industrial or residential schools, and made school attendance compulsory, with strict truancy penalties.

The additions and amendments in this vein are too numerous to explore in their entirety, but the sheer number of them gives a sense of how the Indian Act has been used as a multifaceted instrument of control and assimilation for generations. In addition to the ban on certain dances, ceremonies, and the potlatch, a later amendment in 1914 required Western Indians to seek official permission before appearing in “Aboriginal costume.” The 1880s also saw the creation of the permit system for strictly controlling First Nations farming and an amendment in 1918 allowed the government to lease out uncultivated reserve land to non-Indigenous farmers. An amendment in 1930 prevented pool hall owners from admitting Indians, and there were various prohibitions related to the possession and supply of liquor and other intoxicants—with varying applicability on and off-reserve—from the 1880s through much of the twentieth century.

A 1927 amendment to the Indian Act brought a unique element, since governments were anxious that some First Nations might manage to bring claims for legal title over their own lands before the courts. Such anxieties were especially acute in British Columbia. Section 141 of the 1927 Indian Act therefore made it illegal to raise funds for the benefit of First Nations who sought to pursue claims against the Crown in court. (Relatedly, a 1906 amendment to the Criminal Code had “provided that it was an offence to incite or ‘stir up’ Indians to riotous or disorderly behaviour. Indeed, it was even an offence to incite them ‘to make any request or demand of government in a disorderly manner.’”)

It is essential to note the interwoven chronology of treaties and assimilatory legislation of the Indian Act. Canada began, in earnest, the honing of the law as a tool of assimilation prior to Confederation. This is prior to any of the Numbered Treaties signed from Ontario westward from 1871 to 1930. In fact, the Indian Act was used numerous times to contravene treaty promises. The government failed, of course, to spell out in direct terms the provisions of the Indian Act that contravened the treaty promises it was making. This is significant because, according to RCAP, First Nations were assured orally in the treaty negotiation process “that their way of life would not change unless they wished it to. They understood that their governing structures and authorities would continue undisturbed by the treaty relationship.”

The Indian Act of today is not the same as the one first consolidated in 1876, or even what existed in the first half of the twentieth century. Many of the most controversial amendments mentioned above were eventually removed from the act, and multiple legislative efforts since 1985 have begun a long and imperfect process of removing gender discriminatory provisions in the act that saw generations of Indigenous women and their children lose their status.

Enfranchisement and assimilation continue as a fundamental element of the current Indian Act, however, through a mechanism referred to as the second generation cut-off. This essentially means that if two generations in a row have children with non-status partners, then Indian status is not carried beyond that second generation. In addition, legal scholars John Borrows and Leonard Rotman still consider the act to be a major obstacle in maintaining Indigenous governmental diversity and autonomy, given that its “provisions narrowly define and heavily regulate their citizenship, land rights, succession rules, political organization, economic opportunities, fiscal management, educational patterns and attainment.”

Getting beyond or removing the Indian Act, however, is not as simple as it sounds. The paradox of the act is that it is also integral to securing the legal protection of reserve land for the common use and occupation of First Nations—and there remains very little Canadian territory that is set aside specifically for Indigenous groups. For First Nations, the only way out from under the Indian Act is through the negotiation of self-government agreements, a process that is itself subject to some staunch criticisms.


Borrows, John and Leonard Rotman. Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases, Materials & Commentary. 4th ed. Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2012.

Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Volume 1, Looking Forward, Looking Back. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1996.

Foster, Hamar. “We Are Not O’Meara’s Children: Law, Lawyers, and the First Campaign for Aboriginal Title in British Columbia, 1908-28.” In Let Right Be Done: Aboriginal Title, the Calder Case, and the Future of Indigenous Rights, edited by Hamar Foster, Heather Raven, and Jeremy Webber, 61-84. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007.

Leslie, John. “The Indian Act: An Historical Perspective.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 25, no. 2 (2002): 23-27.

Voyageur, Cora. “Female First Nations Chiefs and the Colonial Legacy in Canada.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 35, no. 3 (2011): 59-78.

1 Comment added

Discussion, passing the talking stick

Closing common to all gatherings

Gathering Theme: Dispelling the Misconceptions about Indigenous People (Manitoba Version)

Gathering Theme

Dispelling the Myths About Indigenous People (Manitoba Version)

Opening common to all gatherings

Presentation of the theme

Many misconceptions about Indigenous peoples in Canada are based on stereotyping and lack of information. These misconceptions have serious consequences and are often at the root of racism and discrimination that Indigenous peoples continue to experience today. For employers, ongoing misconceptions about Indigenous peoples can adversely impact the effectiveness of their Indigenous workforce participation initiatives.

Dispelling the misconceptions and myths is one step towards building relationships based on mutual respect and trust. Here are 10 common misconceptions about Indigenous peoples, along with factual information that will help to dispel them.

(When presenting this theme at a circle, it is often effective to have each of the participants who are willing, to read one of the myths. Be sure participants feel free to pass and not read a myth if they don’t feel comfortable.)

  1. MYTH: All Indigenous peoples are the same.

The Facts:

  • The Indigenous population is very diverse:
  • It is composed of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples – each with a different history, culture and society.
  • In Canada today there are 11 major language families with over 50 forms. Some Indigenous languages are as different as Spanish is from Japanese.
  • British Columbia alone is home to 60% of Indigenous languages in Canada. In that Province there are 34 distinct languages involving 61 dialects. 
  • Indigenous peoples live in many different parts of Canada -in geographically diverse locations such as urban centres, rural communities and remote locations. As of 2016, half of Status Indians live in urban areas.
  • There are 63 Reserves in Manitoba, 207 in Ontario.
  • Not all Indigenous people do pow wows, potlatches, smudges or sweats.
  • Wampum belts were used as a guide by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy to narrate their history while in the West coast, weaving performed the same function. 


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples have always had the same rights as others in Canada.

The Facts:

  • Only recently have Indigenous peoples begun to obtain the same rights as other people in Canada.
  • In 1880, an amendment to the Indian Act provided for automatic loss of status of any Indian who earned a university degree
    or any Indian woman who married a non-Indian or an unregistered Indian. Loss of status was not officially repealed until 1985.
  • In 1884, an amendment to the Indian Act instituted prison sentences for anyone participating in potlatch, or other traditional Indigenous ceremonies.
  • Indigenous people were denied their right to organize politically.
  • Amendments to the Indian Act in 1927 made it illegal for First Nations people or communities to hire lawyers or bring about land claims against the government without the government’s consent.
  • Registered First Nations peoples only obtained the right to vote in 1960.
  • The Nisga’a Treaty was only ratified in 2000. It is the first modern-day treaty in B.C. and it served as a model for many First nations seeking self-government and modern treaties in Canada.
  • In 2016, The Supreme Court declared that Métis (and non-status Indians) must be considered “Indians” in the Constitution and thereby fall under federal jurisdiction. This did not include remedial action, but in conjunction with agreements with provincial governments, this opens the door for Métis rights and land claims.


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples are responsible for their current situation.

The Facts – Many factors have contributed to the situation of Indigenous peoples in Canada:

  • Prior to European contact, Indigenous societies were strong and self-sufficient.
  • While Indigenous peoples were never conquered, the process of colonization resulted in complete loss of control and dependency. For example:
  • According to article 32 (1) of the Indian Act “a transaction of any kind whereby a band or a member thereof purported to sell, barter, exchange, give or otherwise dispose of cattle of cattle,,, grain,… or plants or their products from a reserve.. to a person other than a member of that band, is void unless the superintendent approves of the transaction in writing.”
  • Policies of displacement and assimilation (e.g., residential schools and banning of potlatch) deprived Indigenous peoples of their traditional, social, economic and political powers.
  • Indigenous peoples are now re-establishing control through a process of healing, negotiation and partnership.
  • The Pass system, in place for over 60 years until its repeal in 1941, required written permission from the Indian agent for a person to leave a reserve, to fish, hunt, sell their crops, get married, etc. The pass indicated why they were allowed to be absent, for how long and whether or not they could carry a gun.


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples have a lot of money.

The Facts:

  • Indigenous individuals have lower incomes than others in Canada
  • In 2010, the median income for Indigenous peoples was $20,000—compared to $27,600 median income for the rest of Canadians. While income disparity between Indigenous peoples and the rest of Canadians narrowed slightly in a decade, at this rate it would take 63 years for the gap to be erased.
  • Although Indigenous incomes rise with increased education, even highly educated Indigenous people still face a considerable income gap relative to non-Indigenous people.


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples have everything paid for; they don’t have to pay for their housing, education or medical expenses.

The Facts – Certain services are paid for. What these are, and who they are for, is defined by statute or agreement:

  • Registered First Nations peoples have certain services paid for. These are part of the federal government’s as outlined in the Indian Act. Indigenous people did not ask for the Indian Act.
  • When a registered First Nations person leaves the community, access to these rights are limited. And as the federal government cuts spending, items admissible under these statutory obligations also diminish.
  • The national Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now called Indigenous and Northern Affairs, provides certain services to the Inuit through its Indian and Inuit programs. The department funds services for these communities that other Canadians receive from their provincial or municipal governments. These services include education, social services and community infrastructure.
  • There is a strong link between education and income levels.
  • Only in 2016 was the annual cap of 2% increase in on-reserve funding for education ended.
  • Nobody gets a free education in Canada. We are not subsidizing free education for First Nations people as the myth says. Their schools actually receive far less tax money than schools for non-Indigenous children in Canada. In 2017, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the gap between on reserve schools and other schools in Canada is $665 million. That is even worse than in 2012, when the gap was $595 million. 
  • Outside of the items defined by statute and agreement, Indigenous peoples pay their own expenses.


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples do not pay taxes.

The Facts – Personal tax exemption occurs only in confined cases. Indigenous peoples pay significant amounts of tax every year:

  • Inuit and Métis people always pay taxes.
  • First Nations peoples without status, and registered First Nations peoples living off-reserve, pay taxes like the rest of the country.
  • Registered First Nations peoples working off-reserve pay income tax, regardless of where they reside (even on-reserve).
  • Administrative costs incurred by registered First Nations peoples claiming tax exemption for off-reserve purchases under $500 discourage requests for reimbursement. In these cases, most registered First Nations peoples opt to pay the sales tax.
  • Registered First Nations peoples are sometimes exempted from paying personal taxes. Tax exemption is part of the federal government’s statutory obligation as outlined in the Indian Act.
  • There are many taxes beyond personal income taxes: income taxes on corporations, and unincorporated businesses, federal and provincial sales taxes, and federal excise taxes. Based on 2016 data, Indigenous people contributed over $230 million in taxes annually (57% federal and 43% provincial).


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples cannot interface with, or adapt to, life in the mainstream.

The Facts – Indigenous peoples have extensive and effective relationships with the rest of Canadian society:

  • Indigenous peoples attend, and graduate from, a wide range of colleges and universities.
  • There are over 40,000 businesses owned and operated by Indigenous people in Canada. There are 706 in Manitoba.
  • Indigenous businesses are estimated to have spent $6 billion in 2016. This spending contributed $1.1 billion to Manitoba’s GDP” (p.31)Indigenous businesses form joint ventures (and other business arrangements) with non-Indigenous businesses.
  • The Indigenous economy is the second largest component of the major industries in Manitoba
    •  Agriculture = 5.3%
    •  Indigenous =3.9%
    •  Manufacturing =2.7%
    •  Accommodations and food industry = 2.7%
    •  Mining, oil and gas = 2.0%
  • The Indigenous component contributes $9.3 billion to the Manitoba economy annually
  • Of all self-employed Indigenous people in Canada, women make up 37%, and even 51% of Indigenous small– and medium-sized enterprises are owned in whole or in part by Indigenous women.


  1. MYTH: Indigenous peoples do not have a good work ethic; they have high rates of turnover and absenteeism. They are “lazy.”

The Facts –  ndigenous peoples are skilled, productive and reliable employees who are valued by their employers:

  • Indigenous peoples participate extensively in work-oriented education and training programs.
  • Indigenous peoples are valued as stable, reliable employees who contribute in many ways to corporate performance.
  • Flexible work arrangements may be established to allow Indigenous peoples to pursue their traditional ways, the timing of which differs from statutory holidays.
  • There are 71,440 First Nations people employed in Southern Manitoba, and 16,000 in the North.
  • There are 92,800 Indigenous people in Winnipeg (2016 census). In the 2015 survey of homelessness in Winnipeg, there were about 1,400. Almost 800 were Indigenous. Where are the other 92,000 Indigenous people? Working, at home caring for their children, volunteering, etc. 


  1. MYTH: There are no qualified Indigenous peoples to hire.

The Facts: Indigenous peoples have the education, skills and expertise required for jobs in all economic sectors:

  • Almost one-half (48.4%) of Indigenous people had a postsecondary qualification in 2011, including 14.4% with a trades certificate, 20.6% with a college diploma, 3.5% with a university certificate or diploma below the bachelor level, and 9.8% with a university degree. (In comparison, almost two-thirds (64.7%) of the non-Indigenous population aged 25 to 64 had a postsecondary qualification in 2011).
  • Indigenous peoples work in many occupations. First Nations peoples work in all parts of the Manitoba economy
    • 20% healthcare and social assistance
    • 13% education
    • 11% public administration
    • 10% construction
    • 10% retail trade
  • A young and growing Indigenous population represents an opportunity for economic development in Canada, and even more so in Manitoba. The growing cadre of young Indigenous people represents a supply of new workers, entrepreneurs and professionals.
  • Many services are available to help employers find qualified Indigenous employees.


  1. MYTH: Hiring Indigenous peoples is a form of reverse discrimination.

The Facts: Hiring Indigenous peoples is part of a strategy to develop a representative workforce:

  • A representative workforce strategy means that all groups are represented – those who are part of the majority population as well as those who are in minorities—reflecting the make-up of the country or of the population surrounding work areas.
  • Measures to increase Indigenous workforce participation are not designed to favour one group over another. They are designed to increase access to employment vacancies and promote equitable opportunity for all groups.
  • Provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as well as provincial and territorial statutes) permit employers to take special measures to achieve the equitable representation of Indigenous peoples and other groups in the workforce.


    Our “Resources” section of our website provides a direct link to the full 2019 report on Indigenous contributions to the Manitoba Economy.

    The majority of this document comes from a publication “Indigenous Workforce Participation Initiative,” Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998, with updates from Statistics Canada, and from “Indigenous Strong, Manitoba Strong: Indigenous contributions to the Manitoba Economy” (2019).

    The publication is very consistent with other similar documents, such as the 2012 publication by TD Bank called “Debunking 10 myths surrounding Canada’s Indigenous population.”

Discussion, passing the talking stick

Closing common to all gatherings

Gathering Theme: Treaties – Our Nation to Nation Partnerships

Dr. Tricia Logan


Treaties: Our Nation to Nation Partnerships

 Opening common to all gatherings.

Treaty making processes are sacred, legal and ceremonial events which involved many, but not all First Nations or Indigenous communities across Canada. Treaties in Canada were signed before Confederation (1867), after confederation and in the ‘modern’ era, including treaties signed since 1975. From a First Nations perspective, Treaty making involves sacred ceremonies and a tripartite deal between the First Nation, the colonial representative and the Creator. Treaties did not “surrender or cede land”, they are considered sacred agreements between Nations which covered more than just a “transfer” of territory. Histories of treaties in Canada are complex. They are living documents that continue today to influence legal struggles and decisions over rights as well as land.

Various First Nations communities and nations across Turtle Island (North America) and Canada had and have existing traditions and laws that govern land rights and what would be considered in European law as “human rights”. Ceremonies often include Wampum Belts, pipe ceremonies or an exchange of gifts. A Wampum Belt is typically made from round clam shells often formed into beads and woven with threads. The belt of Wampum is a symbol of peace and often signaled an invitation or start to a meeting between nations. Wampum can also represent an individual’s qualifications or influence. Treaties, agreements and oral histories are signified with use of Wampum in Canadian First Nations including the Haudenosaunee and Onondaga. Records of these laws and ceremonies still circulate and are used today in First Nations communities through oral histories and they date back to times of earliest contact with Europeans and before contact. Knowledge of these ceremonies and agreements are passed on through several generations.

It is important to remember that Indigenous nations view land differently than European traditions and philosophies. The European beliefs in private property and land ownership did not translate well into Indigenous languages or world views. Treaty making did not consider how First Nations and Indigenous peoples established their relationships to the land and how sacred that relationship was and is.

Indigenous groups throughout Turtle Island and Canada often entered into agreements over land, hunting or fishing and trade prior to the arrival of Europeans. After arrival of European colonizers and church missionaries between the 1500s and 1600s First Nations and European traders forged relationships for trade and ending early conflicts.

Royal Proclamation 1763

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III of England and “ownership” of North America was granted to Britain. The Royal Proclamation is still broadly considered an important document that represents the historic relationship between Indigenous peoples and Europeans in Canada. The Royal Proclamation states clearly that the title Indigenous people have to the land had always existed and continues to exist after the Proclamation. The proclamation is referenced in section 25 of the Constitution Act of 1982. This provision dictates that nothing in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms diminishes Aboriginal peoples’ rights as expressed in the Royal Proclamation. This reference to the proclamation in the Constitution Act assures that its interpretation will remain an important part of any attempt to clarify Aboriginal rights in Canadian law. The foundation for establishing and negotiating treaties is often considered to be laid out in the Royal Proclamation.

Myth about Treaties:
It is a myth that all treaties look the same and all the First Nations that signed treaties are similar. The 11 “numbered treaties” (1870-1921) are often what we refer to when we consider that “we are all treaty people”, but there are treaties that pre-dated the numbered treaty era. Here are some of them.

1725-1779 Atlantic Peace and Friendship Treaties

Focused on settling peace and trade relationships, treaties were signed between the Maliseet, Mi’kmaq and other First Nations1, and the British in territories covering Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, the Gaspé region of Québec and Nova Scotia. There were no surrenders of land or rights made to the British by First Nations during the Atlantic treaty-making processes. The treaties were necessary because the Indigenous groups had been primarily aligned with France and French settlers. The transfer of territory to Britain lead to violence between 1725-1779, often directed to Indigenous groups in the region. They sought peace as well as hunting and fishing rights and safety in their territories. Peace and Friendship Treaties in the Maritime Povinces still provide context and a legal basis for Indigenous rights to land, hunting and fishing in the territory.

Manitoba Act (1870)

Métis in Manitoba and Western Canadian provinces often consider the agreements made with Canada in the creation of the Province of Manitoba as the first treaty signed with Indigenous peoples in the West. The creation of Manitoba in 1870 pre-dated the signing of Treaty #1in 1871. Métis citizens led by Louis Riel and a prominent Métis council (1870) fought to preserve Métis rights to education, language and land in the province of Manitoba. Métis were granted land through certificates called “scrip.” The Métis fought the government of Canada until 2013 for adequate compensation promised to them in the original Manitoba Act and the distribution of scrip. The scrip process was unlawfully administered and like land agreements across Canada, signed with Indigenous nations, the agreements were not addressed fairly to the Métis. Land was quite often sold to land surveyors for a fraction of the value or was simply taken from Métis using dishonest methods of land transfer.

Today, at public events, talks or sporting events when we acknowledge that we are on Treaty territory and where applicable, the Homeland of the Métis, we acknowledge these early agreements like the Manitoba Act and the creation of the Métis Settlements of Alberta (1935).

Numbered Treaties (1871-1921)

Treaties are not a fixed description of the promises made or the promises broken. They are relevant, living documents and no two treaties contain the same provisions or agreements. Treaties numbered 1 to 11 were signed between 1871 and 1921 and cover areas in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Northern British Columbia, portions of Northwest Territories and some of the Yukon Territory.

By 1871 First Nations and Métis economic, political and legal systems and structures were already facing a rapid decline and loss in Western Canada. After the devastating loss of buffalo and their existing economic systems after Confederation, many First Nations were provided few options to protect their lands, economies and communities during this period of colonization and Confederation. The first six treaties pre-date the introduction of the Indian Act and many First Nations in Treaty 1-6 territories consider the agreements in the Treaties to be the original terms of their agreements with Canada, before the Indian Act further constrained their rights and movements.

Agreements and promises in the numbered treaties included provisions for land ‘ownership’ and control over education on Reserves, agricultural equipment, hunting and fishing, treaty payments and certain goods for each Reserve. The unmet expectations and broken promises that followed the making of the treaties are notorious in Canadian history.

A prominent myth that still exists about residential schools, education and treaties relies on the promises that government made to build schools on Reserves. It is true that “treaties requested and promised education.” However, like many promises made by government in treaty relationships, what was promised and what was delivered as education did not meet agreements or expectations. The level of education, neglect, abuse, death and aggressive assimilation provided in residential schools was not agreed upon in treaties. Similarly, the treaty money each person receives in the amount of $5.00, is still collected and distributed but it is the original amount promised, never adjusted for rates of inflation.

Modern-Day Treaties (1975-present)

The Government of Canada currently recognizes 24 modern-era post-confederation treaties that are not included as the original post-1867 “numbered treaties”. These modern treaties are also referred to often as ‘comprehensive land claim agreements’. Based on land and resources that were not covered by the original numbered treaties, negotiations started in the early 1970s to provide access and protection to lands and rights not covered in any previous agreements. Many of these agreements included First Nations, Inuit as well as Métis peoples. Treaties, including the modern comprehensive claims are protected by the constitution. Modern claims and negotiations also sought and continue to seek an end to ambiguous language in original agreements and include provisions for allowing self-governance.

These comprehensive land claims agreements include areas in Quebec, Nunavut, the Yukon, Alberta, Labrador, and British Columba.2 There are a number of still unsettled land claims.


Today, the numbered treaties and the modern treaties represent an important relationship between First Nations and the rest of Canada. It is agreed and understood that Treaties provide a foundation for a nation-to-nation partnership. The idea that “We are all Treaty People” stems from the recognition of this partnership and in part, acknowledges that Indigenous nations hold nationhood. Decades or even centuries would pass where First Nations, Métis and Inuit would fight and protest for their rights to be seen as ‘nations’. Acknowledging that we are “All Treaty People” and that there is a nation-to-nation partnership not only acknowledges the partnership but it supports Indigenous sovereignty and their right to stand alone as their own Nations.

Not all First Nations are party to treaties in Canada and, and in those cases, their lands fall outside of treaty areas. First Nations, Métis and Inuit are defined as “Aboriginal peoples” under Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982), but not all of these Aboriginal groups are included in Treaties with Canada.

Myth about Treaties:

All “Indians” or Indigenous peoples receive a free education or free houses as a result of treaties.

It is true that many treaties provide education and schools for First Nations peoples who fall under treaty. Many are still excluded though, those who are not party to treaties. Also, many First Nations pay taxes, and tuition to attend university.

In 2018 there are still First Nations communities in Canada that do not have adequate, “safe and comfy” schools for children. Rights to an education promised in many treaties still have not been met in all areas of Canada.3

Myth: Decolonization and treaty processes mean that newcomers or settlers need to “give their land back”

It is important to acknowledge the treaty relationship on the territory we are on today. That recognition fosters decolonization and recognizes that non-Indigenous settlers and newcomers benefit from living on the land shared with Indigenous peoples. Treaties describe the legal relationship and Indigenous peoples’ rights but none of these legal, historic and sacred agreements ask for anyone to “go back” or cede private property, or move away.

Myth: Treaties are historic documents

Treaties, while sometimes written over 100 or 200 years ago are very living partnerships and relevant documents today. Canadians are asked to learn about treaties and engage with Indigenous communities, embracing “We are all Treaty” people in an effort to better understand the partnership we have on shared land. Treaties represented promises made to Indigenous Nations and, to many people, represent promises that were simply not kept. It is important to remember that these are contemporary and historic documents that document the ways Canadians share the land today.

Our Calls to Action

After the end of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada and the 7-volume final report 94 Calls to Action were presented to Canada and to Canadians. There are several Calls to Action that refer to our Treaty agreements.

Call to Action #94

94. We call upon the Government of Canada to replace the Oath of Citizenship with the following: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.i

Let me try to summarize some key points.

  1. Treaties are the legal basis of many relationships with Indigenous people
  2. They have not been honoured in many respects
  3. Indigenous treaty makers understood they were sharing the land not giving it up.
  4. Treaties deal with more than land; they also deal with Indigenous human rights
  5. There are still treaties being made today
  6. The role of Oral History in proving Aboriginal claims is recognized by the courts.
  7. Many Aboriginal land claims are in fact resolved by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the courts.
  8. Clarification of Indigenous rights is still based on the Royal proclamation of 1763, which is Referenced in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1972.
  9. Indeed, we are all treaty people!

1 The Abenaki, Penobscot and the Passamaquoddy


2 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975); Northeastern Quebec Agreement (1978); Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984); Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992); Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993); 11 Yukon First Nations Final Agreements (1993-2005); Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993); Nisga’a Final Agreement (2000); Tlicho Land Claims and Self Government Agreement (2003); Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2005); Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement (2008); Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement (2009); Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement (2010); and Maa-nulth Final Agreement (2011). (Source: Treaty Commission of Manitoba;


3 See: Shannen’s Dream [ ]

iTreaty Commission of Manitoba;

 National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, Calls to Action;

Angus, Charlie, (2017) Children of the Broken Treaty: Canada’s Lost Promise and One Girl’s Dream, Regina, University of Regina Press.

Asch, Michael, (2014) On Being Here to Stay: Treaties and Aboriginal Rights in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Battiste, Marie, ed., (2016) Living Treaties: Narrating Mi’kmaw Treaty Relations, Sydney: Cape Breton University Press.

Borrows, John and Michael Coyle (eds), (2017), The Right Relationship: Reimagining the Implementation of Historic Treaties, Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Borrows, John (2010), Canada’s Indigenous Constitution, Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Fenge, Terry and Jim Aldridge, (2015) Keeping Promises: The Royal Proclamation of 1763, Aboriginal Rights and Treaties in Canada, Montreal, Kingston: McGill Queen’s University Press.

Macklem, Patrick and Douglas Sanderson, eds.,(2016)  From Recognition to Reconciliation: Essays on the Constitutional Entrenchment of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

McNeil, Kent and Lori Ann Roness, (2000) Legalizing Oral History: Proving Aboriginal Claims in Canadian Courts, Journal of the West, 39.3, 66-74.

Miller, J.R., (2009) Compact, Contract, Covenant: Aboriginal Treaty-Making in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Monture-Angus, Patricia, (2000), Journeying Forward: Dreaming Aboriginal People’s Independence, Pluto Press, Australia

Nurse, Andrew “History, Law and the Mi’kmaq of Atlantic Canada,” Acadiensis vol. 33, no. 2 (2004).

Wicken, William C., (2012) The Colonization of Mi’kmaw Memory and History, 1794–1928: The King v. Gabriel Sylliboy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Please go to our “Resources Section of our Website for:
Treaties and the Treaty Relationships. A special issue of Canada’s History, 2018.

Gathering Theme: Call to Business


Indigenous Communities: An Opportunity for Business Hiding in Plain Sight

The title of our theme is a phrase borrowed from “Indigenous Works,”1 a national non-profit agency headquartered in Saskatoon that is focused on Indigenous employment.” The phrase is part of their report on a national study of businesses and their interest in partnerships with Indigenous companies. It seems like an appropriate description of what we wish to address today.

In our Circle, in the next few minutes we will do four things;

First, read Call to action # 92

Second; reflect on the key points of this call to action

Third: Ask, why should business care

Fourth; reflect on how to move forward


Then, with the use of a talking stick, we will share on how we might proceed or are already doing so.

1) First; let’s take a moment to read call to action # 92 (before beginning the circle, identify four people in the circle who can each read a paragraph)

We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources. This would include, but not be limited to, the following:

  1. Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.
  2. Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.
  3.  Provide education for management and staff on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

2) For those of you who have perhaps never read this before, let’s summarize this Call to Action. It addresses a number of dimensions under what the commission calls a “Reconciliation framework for applying the United Nations Declaration. It asks for

  • Meaningful consultations,
  • respectful relationships,
  • employment opportunities,
  • informed consent before moving to economic development projects,
  • access to jobs, training and educational opportunities,
  • benefits to aboriginal communities and not just to individuals,
  • education of management and staff on the history of Aboriginal peoples

3) What is level of involvement now

In 2016, Indigenous Works, the company we mentioned above, commissioned a national study of 500 large and medium sized businesses in Canada. The result reported that 85 percent of companies have no relationships with Indigenous people. Only 2% of corporations were committed partners.2 While the situation is slightly better on the prairies, Manitoba has the weakest engagement with Indigenous people of the three prairie provinces.

Nationally, the study found

  • Only half of the businesses wanted to do more business with Indigenous groups
  • Less than half were prioritizing hiring Indigenous people
  • Only a third of businesses considered investing in Indigenous communities as a priority

Why is this so? In the words of the companies themselves: about 20 reasons were given; for example:

Never thought of it”,

we need people with specific designations so that is our priority,”

not applicable to our business,”

we would if they reached out to us,”

never occurred to us,” etc.

Five key factors were identified as to why businesses did not consider such engagement;

  1. There are few indigenous people around our business, or if there are, we are unaware of them
  2. Indifference; that is, we don’t’ discriminate, but we don’t reach out
  3. There is limited value for us in being engaged
  4. We don’t really know the situation of Indigenous people very well
  5. It is costly to reach out, and we have limited capacity

4) Why should business care; the benefits

In October of 2017, Don Drummond, former senior economist with CIBC, now at McMaster University wrote that 52% of the future economic growth of Manitoba will depend upon Indigenous work force participation. So, independent of the moral responsibility one could raise, there are economic benefits for business. The Drummond report3 estimates that closing the gap would increase the size of the Canadian economy by $36.4 billion by 2031.

The research by Indigenous Works suggested some solutions.

Things that need to change:

  1. Businesses want to be approached directly by Indigenous groups
  2. Businesses need to see the employment and business potential
  3. Businesses need more experience and knowledge on how to do this
  4. Economic conditions and policies from government need to change

What supports do businesses need to change?

  1. Guidance from Indigenous groups
  2. Mentorship from experienced businesses
  3. Direction from third parties and from government
    1. On the government side, Drummond identifies several obstacles to be overcome;
      1. Lack of predictability in funding
      2. Currently there is greater focus on social service funding to the detriment of funding that addresses economic needs
      3. Lack of high speed broadband in many Indigenous communities
      4. Need for greater Indigenous autonomy

5) So how can businesses proceed?

Let’s back up just a bit. Perry Bellegarde, National Grand Chief stated recently in the Globe and Mail: “Before you try to build anything, build a respectful relationship.” The TRC reportTruth and Reconciliation Commission formed to redress the legacy of residential schools — stresses over and over that respectful relationships are the beginning of reconciliation. And the TRC argues this starts with knowing the Truth. The title of the final report of the TRC is called “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the future.” A business man commented; why worry about the past, let’s just move on to the future.” The TRC refutes that. If we don’t honor the truth of the past, we will never have reconciliation. If we don’t know the past we will never understand intergenerational trauma.


Another common sentiment about residential schools is the following: “They didn’t know back then what we know now. They didn’t realize it was wrong” (CBC Radio, 2017). However, Dr. Cindy Blackstock, member of the Gitksan First Nation challenges this position by sharing the story about Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce. Dr. Bryce was the chief medical officer for the department of Indian Affairs and the department of immigration. In 1904, he was asked to report on the health conditions of children within the Canadian Indian residential school system in Western Canada and the Northwest Territories. When he released the final report in 1907, Bryce exposed the inhuman and unsanitary conditions of residential schools. Bryce revealed: “It suffices for us to know … that of a total of 1,537 pupils reported upon, nearly 25 per cent are dead,” and “of one school with an absolutely accurate statement, 69 per cent of ex-pupils are dead, and that everywhere the almost invariable cause of death given is tuberculosis.” He continued, “We have created a situation so dangerous to health . . . that I was often surprised that the results were not even worse.”4

The report was eventually leaked and appeared on the front page of the newspaper that is now the Ottawa Citizen, making the report public knowledge. Despite Bryce’s damning report, none of the report’s recommendations were immediately implemented.

As Cindy Blackstock passionately states, Dr. Bryce’s publicized report “puts a red hot poker stick into this myth that people in the period didn’t know any better back then.”


So we need to first honour the truth.


Once that truth is acknowledged, then Murray Sinclair’s, Chair of the TRC, message is loud and clear; he says: “Don’t feel guilty about the past, don’t feel shame, they don’t do any good at all, do something about it.”

So let’s return to the role of business. Call to action 92 suggests that as relationships grow, meaningful consultations will grow. The reverse is also true. Honest consultations will lead to relationships. The first baby steps toward partnerships can begin. The most progressive companies are those that develop an internal business strategy as it relates to Indigenous peoples. They have a procurement strategy; an employment strategy. They have benefits sharing.

Call to Action 92 calls for informed Employment decisions; it calls on corporations to investigate where to find new talent, how to design training, and partnering to support employment of indigenous people; ensure cultural sensitivity, maintain an adoptive and innovative workforce. Companies don’t have to start from scratch. Here are just a few examples of opportunities in Winnipeg. The Manitoba Construction Sector Council trains Indigenous people for jobs. Build, Inc. offers a training program for those Indigenous youth facing barriers to employment. Opportunities for Employment (OFE) is another agency that both trains and seeks employment for people, including Indigenous people. Amik provides employment services. Clayton Sandy, who is key to our Circles for Reconciliation conducts all kinds of workshops on preparing Indigenous people for employment.

Once reconciliation is on a business radar, business development decisions and community development decisions can also begin to be considered. On the business development side, those interested can being to think about how reconciliation can influence where to open new locations, how to market their business, their procurement policies, mutual development of their business and Indigenous businesses to grow market share, diversify products and service, strengthen reputations

Companies that begin to think about reconciliation can reflect on community development decisions, specifically what groups or events to sponsor, how to minimize their impact on environment, how to strengthen communities where they operate, invest in education, combine intelligence and information, and identify other opportunities for involvement.



(As an Individual; as a corporation)

Actions you can take as individuals

  1. Read the TRC’s 10 principles of reconciliation
  1. Read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.
  1. Read the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
  1. Sign a petition
  1. Attend a meeting or event
  1. Join a group such as Circles for Reconciliation
  1. Contact a politician
  1. Contact another government official
  1. Write a newspaper
  1. Form a group
  1. Become a mentor
  1. Make a donation
  1. Talk to your supervisor/employer about taking action on reconciliation
  1. Read a book about Indigenous history in Canada
  • Three examples; Thomas King, “The Inconvenient Indian”
  • Chelsea Vowel, “Indigenous Writes”
  • Richard Wagamese, “Indian Horse”
  1. Meet Me at the Bell Tower  (A meeting every Friday at 6.p.m. At the Bell Tower at 610 Selkirk. It is all about hope and positive development for youth in the North End.)


Actions you can take as a business

1. Host a Circle for Reconciliation

2. Have your Indigenous employees invite non-Indigenous employees to form a circle.

3. Contact the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba for a free speaker

4. Contact the Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce

5. Learn about Aboriginal Skills and Employment Strategy (ASET), federal government employment support for Indigenous people

6. Learn about the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC)

7. Reach out to an Elder or Indigenous leader for advice on how to proceed or contact

Circles for Reconciliation

8. Sponsor an Indigenous event

9. Host an Indigenous celebration or event

9. Promote the naming or renaming of sites to original Indigenous names

10. Contact a business that has had success creating a partnership

11. Contact “Indigenous Works” in Saskatoon

12. Contact “Working Warriors”

13. Invite an Indigenous person to sit on a board you are on

14. Other suggestions?

3 Don Drummond and Andrew Sharpe: “Closing Indigenous Socio-Economic Gaps Key to Raising Canada’s Economic Growth, Queen’s University, Kingston: Queen’s Unviersity, posted October 2, 2017.


Gathering Theme: After the Circles: Practicing Solidarity and Living Reconciliation


After the Circles: Practicing Solidarity and Living Reconciliation

Authors: Mary Kate Dennis, Heather McRae and Maya Simpson

(Facilitator reads)
Some non-Indigenous Canadians may struggle with the facts and experiences revealed through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Indigenous people were subject to many forms of colonization and assimilationist policies, characterized as cultural genocide, with the central element of the establishment and operation of residential schools (TRC, 2015). Fortunately, there are Canadians who wish to honour the experiences of the Indigenous survivors of residential schools and are committed to building new relationships with Indigenous people that are based upon respect and reciprocity. In today’s circle, we will look at some ways non-Indigenous people can begin to understand their unique roles and responsibilities in the lifelong journey towards reconciliation.


(Facilitator reads)
Illustrative example of Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce

Commonly, when talking about residential schools, the following sentiment it is often shared: “They didn’t know back then what we know now. They didn’t realize it was wrong” (CBC Radio, 2017). However, Cindy Blackstock, member of the Gitksan First Nation and the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, challenges this position by sharing the story about Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce. He was a physician whose work helped document the mortality rate of Indigenous children in Canadian Indian residential schools.

In 1904, Dr. Peter Bryce, the chief medical officer for the Department of Indian Affairs and Department of Immigration, was asked to report on the health conditions of children within the Canadian Indian residential school system in Western Canada and the Northwest Territories. When he released the final report in 1907, Bryce exposed the inhuman and unsanitary conditions of residential schools. Bryce revealed: “It suffices for us to know … that of a total of 1,537 pupils reported upon, nearly 25 per cent are dead,” and “of one school with an absolutely accurate statement, 69 per cent of ex-pupils are dead, and that everywhere the almost invariable cause of death given is tuberculosis.” He continued, “We have created a situation so dangerous to health . . . that I was often surprised that the results were not even worse.”

The report was eventually leaked and appeared on the front page of the newspaper that is now the Ottawa Citizen, making the report public knowledge. Despite Bryce’s damning report, none of the report’s recommendations were immediately implemented.

As Cindy Blackstock passionately states, Dr. Bryce’s publicized report “puts a red hot poker stick into this myth that people in the period didn’t know any better back then. And we really need to lift up people like Dr. Bryce, who spoke up and spoke out to save children’s lives at a time that was critical” (CBC Radio, 2017). On Dr. Bryce’s legacy, the First Nations Caring Society states, “The Story of Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce is an important part of our history and demonstrates to us the importance of speaking out for what is right and just, even when it is difficult to do so” (Wattam, 2016, p. 1).


(Participant 1 reads)
Allyship Defined

Reconciliation must be grounded in the voices, experiences and aspirations of First Nations, Metis and Inuit people of Canada. Since the release of the TRC’s Final Report, many Indigenous peoples and their allies have started to talk about reconciliAction (Ubokudom, 2017). Truth-telling, empathy and listening are instrumental to reconciliation but without action, reconciliation will gradually lose meaning and become another token response to systemic injustice.

PeerNet BC states that allyship “begins when a person of privilege seeks to support a marginalized individual or group.” Allyship requires a commitment to unlearning and learning about privilege, power and oppression and involves a “life-long process of building relationships based on trust, consistency and accountability with marginalized individuals or group.

Allyship is hard. Ally is a verb that requires action. Allyship is not an identity, nor is it a performance. Allyship is a practice. Allyship requires an ongoing commitment to working in solidarity with Indigenous peoples. Allies are not self-defined but are recognized and affirmed by Indigenous peoples. To practice solidarity, non-Indigenous people must be accountable and responsive to the voices, needs and political perspectives of Indigenous peoples (Walia, 2012). Allies must recognize how they have participated in and benefited from colonialism while working towards supporting Indigenous self-determination.


(Participant 2 reads)
Responsibilities while practicing allyship:

  • Actively acknowledge your privileges (race, economic class, sexuality, gender, ability, religion, etc.) and openly discuss them. Here are some examples of white privilege:
  • I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.

  • If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live. 

  • I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. 

  • I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

  • I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider. 

  • If a police officer pulls me over, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

  • Listen more and speak less.
  • Work with integrity and direct communication.
  • Do your own research: Do not expect to be educated by Indigenous peoples.
  • Build your capacity to receive criticism.
  • Embrace the emotions that come out of allyship (discomfort, guilt, shame, etc.).
  • Acknowledge that the needs of non-Indigenous allies are secondary to those of Indigenous people with whom you seek to work.
  • Do not expect awards or special recognition (PeerNetBC).

(Participant 3 reads)
Pitfalls and Responsibilities for Allies

Two key pitfalls to avoid are taking leadership and self-identifying as an ally.

From an anti-oppression perspective, meaningful support for Indigenous struggles cannot be directed by [non-Indigenous peoples] (Walia, 2012). Circles for Reconciliation is an example of this principle. Circles for Reconciliation is a full and equal partnership between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people. Our advisory committee, our circles, our facilitators, and our staff have an equal number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We are a partnership in practice. Consistent with Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we practice mutually respectful relationships. Our leadership is shared.

The second principle of self-identifying as an ally highlights the importance of “building long-term relationships of accountability and never assuming or taking for granted the personal and political trust that [non-Indigenous peoples] may earn from Indigenous peoples over time” (Walia, 2012). This speaks to why an ally must be acclaimed or identified as an ally by Indigenous peoples.


(Participant 4 reads)
Example of Allyship in Action

According to Gaa wii ji’i diyaang (2017), a collective of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples working towards reconciliation at the University of Manitoba, there are five key ways in which non-Indigenous people demonstrate their commitment to building new relationships with Indigenous peoples:

  1. Awareness: are aware that social inequities exist and are rooted in social, economic, and historical contexts related to colonization.
  2. Recognition: recognize their own position within power relations and structures that uphold or disrupt inequity.
  3. Positionality: work to become fully grounded in their own cultural history and how it relates to colonialism.
  4. Accountability: are willing to engage in the difficult conversations around truth and reconciliation and recognize that their own mistakes and the mistakes of others are part of the learning process; they are, in fact, opportunities to grow.
  5. Embodied acts: practice their active listening skills, learn about past and present colonial structures and actions through self-reflection of allyship.

(Participant 5 reads)
Questions for Reflection

We invite you to reflect upon the following questions, some of which you can address when you have the talking stick or reflect upon once you leave today.

For Indigenous participants:

  1. Have you had past experiences of working with an ally?
  2. In what ways did these people demonstrate allyship?
  3. What traits does an ally need in order to work with Indigenous people?
  4. What do you need from allies to work with them in solidarity?

(Participant 6 reads)

For non-Indigenous participants:

  1. What are some barriers for you to become an ally?
  2. In what ways have you benefited from colonization?
  3. What skills and strategies have you used to challenge anti-Indigenous racism?
  4. What are some specific ways that you can work towards being an ally to Indigenous people?

Participant 7 reads)

For all participants:

  1. During our circle talk, we have used the term “non-Indigenous,” what is your definition of a non-Indigenous person? Does it include the term settler? Who is a settler?
  2. How do Canadians go about righting the historic and ongoing legacy of harms related to Indigenous people?

) we will now ask you to read an action that you can take on reconciliation from the following list.

Circles for Reconciliation



(As an Individual; as a corporation)

Actions you can take as individuals

  1. Read the TRC’s 10 principles of reconciliation
  1. Read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.
  1. Read the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
  1. Sign a petition
  1. Attend a meeting or event
  1. Join a group such as Circles for Reconciliation
  1. Contact a politician
  1. Contact another government official
  1. Write a newspaper
  1. Form a group
  1. Become a mentor
  1. Make a donation
  1. Talk to your supervisor/employer about taking action on reconciliation
  1. Read a book about Indigenous history in Canada

Three examples:

  1. Thomas King, “The Inconvenient Indian”
  2. Chelsea Vowel, “Indigenous Writes”
  3. Richard Wagamese, “Indian Horse”
  1. Visit “Meet Me at the Bell Tower”. (A meeting every Friday at 6.p.m. At the Bell Tower at 610 Selkirk. It is all about hope and positive development for youth in the North End.)

Actions you can take as a business

1. Host a Circle for Reconciliation

2. Have your Indigenous employees invite non-Indigenous employees to form a circle.

3. Contact the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba for a free speaker

4. Contact the Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce

5. Learn about Aboriginal Skills and Employment Strategy (ASET), federal government employment support for Indigenous people

6. Learn about the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC)

7. Reach out to an Elder or Indigenous leader for advice on how to proceed or contact

Circles for Reconciliation

8. Sponsor an Indigenous event

9. Host an Indigenous celebration or event

9. Promote the naming or renaming of sites to original Indigenous names

10. Contact a business that has had success creating a partnership

11. Contact “Indigenous Works” in Saskatoon

12. Contact “Working Warriors”

13. Invite an Indigenous person to sit on aboard you are on

14. Other suggestions?

References and Resources

Bryce, P. H. (1907). Report on the Indian schools of Manitoba and the North West Territories. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau. Retrieved from

CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning. (2017, June 2). Ottawa doctor who sounded alarm on residential schools remembered with exhibit. CBC News. Retrieved from

Gehl, L. (n.d.). Ally Bill of Responsibilities. Retrieved January 18, 2017 from

Gaa wii ji’i diyaang (2017). Terms of Reference. University of Manitoba

Groundwork for Change website:

PeerNetBC (n.d). Allyship 101. Retrieved from


The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future. Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Walia, H. (2012). Moving Beyond a Politics of Solidarity toward a Practice of Decolonization. Organize!: Building from the Local for Global Justice, 240.

Wattam, J. (July 2016). Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce: A Story of Courage. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved from


Ubokudom, D-A. (2017, November 15). UMSU encourages university to develop an Aboriginal language degree program. “ReconciliAction campaign to foster Truth and Recnociliation on campus”. The Manitoban. Retrieved from

van Dijk, T.A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3(1), 87-118.

Authors: Mary Kate Dennis, Heather McRae and Maya Simpson

Gathering Theme: The Sixties Scoop


The Sixties Scoop and the Child Welfare System

Tricia Logan

   Histories and legacies of the residential school system in Canada are intricately tied to the history of the ‘Sixties Scoop’ and the Child Welfare system that we know today.

   Cumulative failures of the residential school system influenced some changes in the late 1950s and 1960s. One major turning point occurred after changes to the Indian Act in 1951 when more power was transferred to the provinces to remove children from their families. Increasingly, children were still being taken from their homes, often without notice and apprehended by social workers inside the provincial child welfare systems. Thousands of Indigenous children were adopted out of their homes and ‘scooped’, in many cases without any prior notice to the parents or families. Children were often adopted out of the province and into the United States. There are continuing efforts today to reunite family members who were ‘scooped’ away into adoptive families. The ongoing impacts of forced separation from their parents and families are impacting individuals and extended families today.

   Many adoptive families and parents loved and cared for the children ‘scooped’ from their homes in the 1960s, 70s and 80s ‘Scoop’. There are also countless cases of children who were abused, exploited and discriminated against in their adoptive homes. While the treatment of children varied from family to family, the children are united in the shared impacts on their connections to culture, identity and languages. In addition, the Sixties Scoop and the present-day Child Welfare system for First Nations and Aboriginal children is a story of a deeply broken system. A system that is quite like the residential schools, notoriously under funded and it has a dangerously low level of support for children, workers and families. Presently, the number of children currently in foster care far exceeds the number of children who attended the residential schools at the height of the schools’ operation.

   In 2016, following a 10 year legal battle, the First Nations Caring Society won a case in front of Canada’s Human Rights tribunal. The tribunal found that the Child Welfare system for First Nations children living on Reserve is clearly discriminating against First Nations children in care and in its jurisdictional distribution of health care to First Nations communities. While the operation of the Child Welfare system has experienced changes since the 1960s, it remains a critical failure of upholding basic rights, support for health and for wellbeing of Indigenous children in Canada.

   Please see the First Nations Caring Society for additional resources and information on their advocacy work, on behalf of First Nations and Indigenous children in care.


Blackstock, Cindy. 2007. ‘Residential schools: Did they really close or just morph into child welfare?’ Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 71-78.

Blackstock, Cindy. 2009. ‘Why Addressing the Over-Representation of First Nations Children in Care Requires New Theoretical Approaches Based on First Nations Ontology.’ Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, no. 3, vol. 6: 24-45.

Blackstock, Cindy, and Nico Trocmé. 2005. ‘Community based child welfare for Aboriginal children’. In Handbook for working with children and youth: Pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts, edited by Michael Ungar, 105-120. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Chartrand, Larry, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels. 2006. Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Fournier, Suzanne and Ernie Crey. 1997. Stolen from Our Embrace: The Abduction of First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.

Johnson, Patrick. 1983. Native Children and the Child Welfare System.Toronto: Lorimer.

Kimmelman, Edwin. 1985. No Quiet Place: Final Report to the Honourable Muriel Smith, Minister of Community Services/Review Committee on Indian and Métis Adoptions/Placements. Winnipeg: Manitoba Community Services.

Lavell-Harvard, D. M. and Lavell, J.C. (editors). 2006. Until Our Hearts Are On The Ground: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Toronto: Demeter Press.

Sinclair, Raven. 2007. ‘Identity Lost and Found: Lessons from the Sixties Scoop’. First Peoples Child & Family Review. 3.1, 65-82.

Timpson, J.B. 2010. Four Decades of Child Welfare Services to Native Indians in Ontario: A Contemporary Attempt to Understand the “Sixties Scoop” in Historical Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives, D.S.W. Dissertation. Wilfred Laurier University, Faculty of Social Work.

Trocmé, Nico, Knoke, Della and Blackstock, Cindy. 2004. ‘Pathways to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in Canada’s child welfare system’. Social Service Review, 78(4), 577-601.

Closing common to all gatherings

Gathering Theme: Day Schools and Day Scholars


Day Schools and Day Scholars

Tricia Logan

Opening common to all gatherings

The ‘Indian’ day schools in Canada are considered part of the entire system of residential school systems. The term ‘residential school’ often encompasses a number of different kinds of schools including: boarding, industrial, mission and day school, hostels, residences, TB sanatoriums and hospitals. While the legal definitions are often limiting, the full experience of the ‘residential school system’ includes a number of different kinds of schools operated by the federal government, provincial government(s) and various religious denominations. Day scholars also attended residential schools and had similar experiences but since they did not stay overnight they were also not eligible for compensation.

While majority of day schools were not ‘officially’ recognized in the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), the day school system was very much part of the whole system of residential schools. Most importantly, many former students and Survivors who attended day schools had very similar or identical kinds of day-to-day and long-term experiences as Survivors who attended boarding-style residential schools.

Smaller ‘mission’ or day schools were operated across Canada and typically co-administered by either Protestant or Catholic churches, the provincial/territorial governments or in some cases, the federal government. Student attendance at day schools would often rely on the location of the school, denomination of the school and often the identity of the home community or of the children and parents. Often, Métis children attended the day schools in large numbers since many considered that Métis were the ‘responsibility’ of provincial governments. Métis often slipped into a jurisdictional gap between government administrations and their school attendance was often defined by these gaps.

Students did not stay overnight at the day schools, many were able to go home at the end of the school day, but often the conditions at the school and treatment of the children, by clergy and teachers was similar or identical to that at the residential schools. In other day schools, many children were billeted into homes or stayed at a hostel or residence while they attended the day school. In many large boarding-style residential schools ‘day scholars’ would go home at the end of the day as well but still faced the same treatment, day-to-day as the rest of the students.

These experiences vary but they are often recognized in the broad experience of the ‘residential school experience’ in Canada. Of note though, is the legal battle many day school students and day scholars still carry on with, today. The 2005 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) does not ‘officially’ recognize the experience of a majority of day school attendees. So, while many students faced the same treatment as students who attended boarding-residential schools, the Settlement Agreement did not recognize their experiences and many carry on with legal battles, today. Schedule ‘E’ of the IRSSA lists the ‘officially’ recognized schools and in order for any former attendees of residential or day schools to apply for the Common Experience Payment (CEP) or the Independent Assessment Process (IAP), their school had to be listed on the ‘official’ list. If their school did not appear, they could apply for an appeal and potentially their school could be added to the list or they would be denied compensation under the IRSSA.

Currently, Survivors and former day school attendees are still fighting legal battles for abuses they endured at the day schools and for recognition of their experiences. In individual and class action suits, day school Survivors carry on with important work for recognition and to attain the same or similar support as all Survivors of the entire residential school system.

For more information on legal action and class action suits for day scholars, please see:

Chartrand, Larry, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels. 2006. Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation


Closing common to all gatherings

Gathering Theme: Métis Experience at Residential Schools


Métis Experience at Residential Schools

Tricia Logan

Opening common to all gatherings

Métis children were included in the residential school system and system of ‘Indian’ day schools from the time that the schools first opened, until the closure of the last school in 1996. Along with First Nations and Inuit students, Métis attended the schools forcibly and in later years of the schools’ administration, also attended voluntarily. While many Métis Survivors share stories of similar school experiences to First Nations and Inuit students, there were often conditions around the admission of Métis students and their treatment by staff and fellow students that made their experiences quite distinct.

In the residential school era, Métis were not considered ‘Indians’ legally, under Canada’s Indian Act. They were considered the responsibility of the provincial governments and often education and health support for Métis fell into a jurisdictional gap between these levels of government. In large boarding-style residential schools, Métis were often considered ‘outsiders’ and their attendance at the schools depended on a number of different variables. At the end of the nineteenth century, Métis were cast as ‘rebellious’ and were often considered to be ‘the dispossessed’. For most of the first half of the twentieth century Métis were marginalized politically, economically and socially. Their treatment in Canadian society often mirrored their treatment in the schools and whether or not they would be taken to residential schools, mission schools, day schools, provincial schools or no schools at all.

Early in the administration of the boarding-style residential schools in Canada, the department of Indian Affairs circulated a document to schools about the ‘Admission of Halfbreeds’ into their schools. Métis or ‘Halfbreeds’ were to be considered in three classes, by the schools. Their class would determine whether or not they were to be admitted to schools. In the early years of the residential schools’ administration (1890-1920), correspondence from the Department of Indian Affairs would often cite the following ‘classes’ for Halfbreeds:

Halfbreeds may be grouped into three fairly well-defined classes.

1. Those who live, in varying degrees of conditions, the ordinary settled life of the country.

2. Those who live, in varying degrees, the Indian mode of life.

3. Those who – and they form the most unfortunate class in the community – are the illegitimate offspring of Indian women, and of whom white men are not the begetters.

Those of the first class make no claim upon the Government of the Dominion for

the education of their children; nor has any such claim as far as the knowledge of the undersigned goes been made on their behalf. The third class are entitled to participate in the benefits of the Indian schools; and in so far as the afore quoted … [w]hen Indian Treaties are made the illegitimate children … of Indian treaty women were excluded and payment of their annuity money for them on their behalf was refused. That policy appears to have been adopted to discourage illegitimate breeding. As to the second class of Halfbreed the undersigned at once admit that they present a difficult educational problem, but the very difficulty effects a strong reason against drawing a hard and fast line such as it drawn. This second class of Halfbreeds maybe divided into three groups:

1. Those who live apart from Indians but follow somewhat Indian mode of life

2. Those who live in the vicinity of Indian Reserves

3. [Those who] [l]ive on the Reserves

(PAM, RG10, vol. 6039, file 160-1, part 1)

Many Métis still attended outside of this class system for various reasons. Occasionally, skin colour would influence whether or not a student looked more or less ‘Indian’ to the administrators of the school. Additionally, many Métis families were Catholic families and they would be admitted into residential schools or day schools according to the denomination of the schools operating the school. Admission to schools often appeared to be ad-hoc, or later on, taken on a case-by-case basis.

Social, political and economic factors also influenced whether or not school officials, RCMP or clergy would take Métis children from a specific family or community to a residential school. Métis fell into a jurisdictional gap and lived hidden lives in many parts of Canada. Métis leader Malcolm Norris once said about the Métis and education:

I have always understood that it was against the law not to send the children to school, and Inspectors are maintained for that very purpose, but unfortunately our people have been discriminated against, and to such an extent, that even though they may pay taxes, no steps are taken by the authorities to see that their children are sent to school, apparently the Half-breed is not worth caring about. (TRC, 2016, p. 26)

Métis political resistance grew in the later half of the twentieth century and their campaigns advocated strongly for better education for Métis communities. They often cited these government and church failings between the systems that left Métis falling through the cracks.

Métis experiences at residential school

In a school system built originally as a ‘solution’ to the ‘Indian Problem’ and operated by Indian Affairs, Métis were outside of federal responsibility and had been socially and politically relegated to the margins of Canadian society. Whether century. Since they sometimes attended residential schools without official federal funding, they were not provided with food, access to washrooms or school uniforms like the rest of the students. In schools already notorious for their legacies of neglect and abuse, excluding students based on ‘class’ structure and government-constructed identities created added pressures on children at the schools. Whether

that move was literal or metaphorical, Métis existed in the margins of society and the road allowances 1of non-Indigenous communities for several decades of the 20th A brief addition to the seven volumes of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation of Canada is a history of Métis experiences at residential school. One of the stories included in the report, from a Métis student describes bullying by other students:

When attending the Pine Creek residential school in Manitoba, Raphael Ironstand, a boy of mixed descent who had been raised in a First Nations community, was bullied by Cree students. The Crees surrounded me, staring at me with hatred in their eyes, as again they called me ‘Monias,’ while telling me the school was for Indians only. I tried to tell them I was not a Monias, which I now knew meant white man, but a real Indian. That triggered their attack, in unison. I was kicked, punched, bitten, and my hair was pulled out by the roots. My clothes were also shredded, but the Crees suddenly disappeared, leaving me lying on the ground, bleeding and bruised. Although the sisters had showed little sympathy at the time, Ironstand had a very special memory of a nun who showed him kindness. I poured out my story to this understanding nun about my confused feelings, being a non-person with white skin, even though I was an Indian. At that she put her arm around me and assured me that I was a very important person to her, which immediately raised my self-esteem. It was the first time since I came to the school that anyone had touched me without punishing or beating me. As she ushered me out of the door, she stopped and gave me a hug, which made me feel warm all over. Such shows of affection were rare. Even if they developed close friendships, most students felt unloved. (TRC, 2016, p. 53)

Métis Survivors often described feeling bullied by fellow students, members of staff and their communities when they returned home from residential school. In some places, Métis were often cast as ‘worse off than Indians’ or because they were Halfbreeds, they were considered by others to be less than either one of their ‘halves’.

Inside Métis communities, the myths and stereotypes about the Métis damaged many, but also fuelled centuries of resistance and resurgence. Métis carried on with their political, legal and social structures, even hidden and often while they were being sternly discriminated against. Métis languages also came under threat during residential school eras and through ongoing colonialism in Canada. Métis languages and cultures have experienced resurgence and Métis often lead movements towards ongoing resistance and reconciliation in Canada. Métis, First Nations and Inuit across Canada survived these colonial structures and school systems. Their times in schools included struggles but they undoubtedly included strength, as well.

Métis were not officially included in the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and many feel left out in this contemporary era of apology, compensation and reconciliation. Many attended day schools and schools that were not included in the official settlement agreement. Métis communities still face barriers placed up by government definitions and imposed identities. Métis communities will face the barriers as they always have though, and continue to re-define, maintain their own identities and rely on the unquestionable strength of their communities.

For additional stories about Métis experiences, or for more information please see:

Canada’s Residential Schools: The Métis Experience, Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2016

Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools, Larry Chartrand, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels, 2006


Provincial Archives of Manitoba, (PAM, RG10, vol. 6039, file 160-1, part 1)

Barkwell, Lawrence J., Leah Dorian and D.R. Préfontaine. 1999. Resources for Métis researchers. Winnipeg and Saskatoon: Louis Riel Institute of the Manitoba Métis Federation and Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research.

Barkwell, Lawrence J., Leah Dorian and D.R. Préfontaine (eds.) 2001. Métis Legacy: A Métis Historiography and Annotated Bibliography. Winnipeg, MB: Pemmican Publications Inc.

Daniels, Judy D. 2003. Ancestral Pain: Métis Memories of Residential School Project. Edmonton, AB: Métis Nation of Alberta.

Chartrand, Larry, Tricia Logan and Judy Daniels. 2006. Métis History and Experience and Residential Schools in Canada. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2016. Canada’s Residential Schools: The Métis Experience. Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

1 “The Road Allowance People were the Métis, who, without a homeland, were forced to build homes and communities on the crown land known as “road allowance” land set aside for a highway. They lived a precarious existence, welcome neither in white settlements nor allowed to live on Treaty land. The Crown land, of course, could be appropriated or developed at any time; people were often burned out of their homes or otherwise forced to move.” “The Road Allowance People,” by Carolyn Pogue, United Church Observer, May, 2013.

Gathering Theme: The Justice System


The Justice System

Kate Kehler
Maraleigh Short

Opening common to all gatherings

The criminal justice system in Canada and Manitoba is primarily based on the European adversarial model. The crown attorney seeks to prosecute on behalf of the government while the defense attorney works to discredit the Crown’s arguments. The Crown’s role is to do what is best for society as a whole, not seek revenge for an individual. However, day to day reality is such that many Crown attorneys seek the strictest punishment they think they can get, and the defense lawyers just try to mitigate that. Often this results in a plea bargain – a joint submission that the judge then accepts. In Manitoba, courts today are so backlogged with procedural matters that resolving cases has seemingly become more important than resolving them well. It is often so rushed that the accused can be asked to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives in cramped little rooms, just minutes before going into court.

The Crown does not lay charges. The police do that. However it is up to the Crown to decide which charges to pursue. The Crown is not supposed to pursue a charge they are not convinced they can prove beyond doubt. However, Crown attorneys routinely pursue charges that are only ‘triable’. The fear here is that someone who has spent months incarcerated prior to trial, if promised immediate release given time served, will just plead guilty and no real resolution will have been achieved.

Remand and bail

Manitoba continues to be the province that holds the most people for the longest period of time on pre-sentenced (or remand) status. On any given day, about 70% of the people we have in custody are awaiting trial or sentencing.

The wealthier amongst us can pretty well count on getting bail because we are viewed as low risk and can afford a lawyer or afford to borrow to hire one. People in poverty may or may not have a stable home or job and have to rely on the chronically underfunded legal aid system. The perceived risks in both this instability and lack of advocacy mean they are more often than not denied bail.

To the average person it must seem that we have jails and prisons overflowing with very dangerous individuals. This is not the case. Most people in our provincial jails are there for breaches of bail or probation conditions, and not for committing a new crime. Most front line workers and even some judges complain about the number of conditions recommended and imposed on people as simply setting them up to fail.

Here are just some of what we know about who we currently have incarcerated in Canada with some Manitoba specific statistics:

  • The adult non-Indigenous population in jail has been decreasing steadily, while the Indigenous (a younger demographic) population has increased dramatically. Indigenous peoples represent about 4% of the total population, but about 25% of those we incarcerate.

  • There has been an increase of 112% in the incarceration of Indigenous women in recent years. In the prison for women in Headingly, 8 out of 10 inmates are Indigenous.

  • In Canada, you are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated at some point in your life if you are Indigenous.

  • 90% of the 11,000 children in care in Manitoba are Indigenous,

  • 65% of the men in Stony Mountain Penitentiary were children in care.

  • 80% of those we incarcerate grew up in poverty and lack a grade 12 education.

Being Indigenous and poor is the most direct path to prison. Canadians worry about a two-tier health system? We have long had a two-tier justice system.

Poverty and Crime

Let’s look more closely at the link between poverty and crime. Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal said, given that 80% statistic above “if crime abatement is the goal then it is time that all Canadians and their governments got tough on poverty.” Many will say that they know lots of people who have grown up in and/or continue to struggle in poverty but have never committed a crime. Of course the majority don’t commit crime. They are in fact more likely to be the victims of crime given that they are forced to live in high crime areas due to the lack of truly affordable housing elsewhere. Furthermore, that is their community so they may not want to leave.

In Manitoba, one in three children live in poverty. Winnipeg Harvest shares food with nearly 62,000 Manitobans a month, through emergency food programs across the province. Of these, more than 26,000 are children and more than 4,000 of them are under the age of 2.

Harvest also reports that those growing up in poverty were far more likely to be in ill health and die before the age of 65, than those who do not.

When we allow people to be raised in desperate situations, we should not be surprised if some become desperate. Children know when they are being left behind or left out. The effects of that knowledge has lasting impact. Crisis thinking and impulse decision making becomes all too easily entrenched.

Our current justice system relies on incarceration to rehabilitate individuals who commit crime.

What is actually happening in our jails is another matter .The vast majority of resources simply go to keeping staff and inmates alike physically safe. Rehabilitative programing resources are scarce. Headingly’s workshop rooms were converted to provide more beds. The use of solitary confinement as a security measure remains a huge issue. The Government of Manitoba and Justice Department recently changed terminology. They stopped calling the provincial institutions “jails” and renamed them “correctional centres”. It was meant to highlight the importance of rehabilitation. However, the reality is that people come out not corrected, but institutionalized.

Institutionalization creates its own consequences. Taking decision making out of people’s hands creates dependency. People lose the ability to stay on a schedule and manage what little money they may have properly. This culture of dependency, added to a criminal record, keeps people from establishing stable living conditions and employment.

When we incarcerate people we stop any progress they may have made. If they had a job or place to live, that is gone. If they are a woman with kids, those kids usually end up in government care. The disruption and cost to us all is massive.

It costs three times as much to incarcerate a person than it does to keep them supported in the community. These costs do not even include police, court and Child and Family Services’ costs.

The TRC highlights the need for child and family service, education and justice reform.

Restorative justice

Restorative Justice is the traditional justice system for many Indigenous peoples. It also has the added benefit of being the form of justice for many of our newcomer communities who are also becoming one of the fastest rising populations caught up in our justice system for much the same reasons; trauma, poverty, colonization through violence and war.

Restorative Justice approaches crime and harm as an imbalance that needs to be corrected.

It ensures that the person who committed the harm is accountable, takes responsibility for and works to repair the harm.

When possible, it allows for direct restitution to the person harmed, but also provides more peace to these victims as they get a better understanding of the whys of what was done to them. Victims of crime who engage in restorative justice processes report much higher levels of satisfaction than those who go through our current system.

Restorative Justice can also come into play at various stages in the system. It can divert one out of the system before all of the ill effects of incarceration makes matters worse. But it has also been used after a sentence has been served. Some family members of murder victims have received peace of mind when meeting with those who have served their sentence and have ‘owned’ what they have done.

Contrary to the popular perception that restorative justice is easier than incarceration and tantamount to ‘thug hugging’, most perpetrators who go through the process say it is much harder to ‘own-up’ to their failings and face the ones they harmed than it is to sit in a jail cell and focus on their own suffering, rather than what they caused.

Most importantly, by a careful examination of the incident, the context of the crime is better understood by the community and the community gains a better understanding of how it can address the root cause of the imbalance.

Discussion; passing the talking stick

Closing common to all gatherings